15 ms·

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public sa

by fusslo 7mo ago

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered 'owner'". and the person whom the citation was issued to must sign an affidavit that includes the name, address, dob, of the person who was actually driving. The judge says this "...abandon(s) centuries time honored protections of hearsay as substantive evidence.". "It is a foundational rule of constitutional due process that the government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be adjudicated guilty of a crime". "Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution..." "under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." - that's probably the core of the reasoning here. "Section 316.074(1) provides in relevant part that "The driver of any vehicle shall obey..."" - the driver, not the registered owner. I highly recommend reading the order. It's easy to follow and aligns with my understanding of the law within the USA.

moduspol 7mo ago
Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?
- Tactical45 7mo ago
  And speed light cameras
  - atomicUpdate 7mo ago
    What is a speed light camera?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- causal 7mo ago
  No. Parking is leaving your possession somewhere and should apply to the registered owner. It is not illegal to own a car that someone else used to run a red light.
  - spunker540 7mo ago
    No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.
    - Muromec 7mo ago
      Or is it?
    - interestpiqued 7mo ago
      If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?
      - vkou 7mo ago
        When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to. But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.
        interestpiqued 7mo ago
        It seems in this case they’re not asking, they’re accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think that is substantively different Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I’m saying
      - gus_massa 7mo ago
        3 year before the murder: You are probably fine, IANAL 10 minutes before the murder: Expect to get an accusation of accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a few additional tomes of the penal code. We all know you are innocent, but you should better find a good lawyer just in case instead of wasting your last free minutes arguing on the internet.
- wifipunk 7mo ago
  Almost, except parking tickets are still typically civil “owner-liability” citations tied to where the car is parked, while red-light violations are intended to target the driver’s conduct
- horsawlarway 7mo ago
  possibly, although I suspect the quote from above: > Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution... Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light) is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking) in how they're handled, and often how they're classified. Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.
  - devman0 7mo ago
    Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it does become a misdemeanor moving violation.
  - bdangubic 7mo ago
    there is no state where a moving violation is criminal misdemeanor. some moving violations may be CM but there are myriad of moving violations whose class/degree is not CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with it you better get yourself an attorney.
    - tsimionescu 7mo ago
      That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings, and as such, that the protections for criminal prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.
      - giantg2 7mo ago
        Where is the line drawn for criminal vs civil in nature? It feels like any civil case brought against an individual by a government is quasi-criminal.
        bdangubic 7mo ago
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?
  - otterley 7mo ago
    No.
SunshineTheCat 7mo ago
I've followed a few cases surrounding traffic cameras that have been ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that individuals have the right to face their accuser. The question in those cases came down to if the operators of the cam can be considered "accusers." They widely considered that of course the cam itself didn't count as an accuser, but the question was how "automated" the system was. If there was a human who flagged it, the system was fine, if it was fully automated, they were unconstitutional. Many states don't share this opinion, but an interesting argument nonetheless.
- burningChrome 7mo ago
  They started putting them up in the midwest where I live. The interesting thing is if you get a ticket and just pay it? Nothing. If you get a ticket and you challenge it, the judge will immediately throw it out for the reason you pointed out or just dismiss it before it even gets to court by sending out a form letter saying they nullified the ticket, no reason to pay it. So in essence, if you know this is what they're doing, you're good. But they're not telling people so the money grift continues unabated and in place.
  - giantg2 7mo ago
    So if it's established as unconstitutional, couldn't you file a criminal complaint of official oppression against the members of whatever government approved the cameras since they are levying unconstitutional fines?
    - jcranmer 7mo ago
      As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action. You could file a civil action for violation of constitutional rights, but under Roberts, SCOTUS has basically been ripping out all of the mechanisms that would let you file such suits.
      - giantg2 7mo ago
        "As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action." You can file with the police, if they take it. You can also file as a private criminal complaint in many jurisdictions. However, it's up to the DA to approve it most of the time. There can be an appeal process where a judge would make a determination. But yes, if the whole system is corrupt, then there's not much to do.
tootie 7mo ago
As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  I people are routinely running a red for a particular intersection, it seems likely that there is a design problem with the intersection or the signaling. Improving safety would be fixing the underlying problem.
  - tsimionescu 7mo ago
    It's actually pretty common for some people to just run red lights when the road is really clear, especially at night. Best that could maybe be done would be to reduce visibility of cross traffic, so that the drivers can't tell from afar that the road they'll cross is clear - but this is likely to cause other kinds of risks.
    - tootie 7mo ago
      They do it when the road is busiest actually. Just following the bumper in front of them instead of looking up.
- toast0 7mo ago
  If people routinely run the red light, it seems like an easy case to post an officer to do traffic stops and issue tickets. AFAIK, tickets issued by a sworn officer are broadly constitutional.
  - tootie 7mo ago
    There's a literal police station at the intersection and they don't pay any attention at all.
hamdingers 7mo ago
California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
- danesparza 7mo ago
  "It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance." Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?
  - vkou 7mo ago
    What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - danesparza 7mo ago
      Wow dude. Calm down. "What's the alternative?". Maybe a more thoughtful law. Perhaps a scaled fine system? (The second fine costs 2x the first fine, the third fine costs 3x the first fine, etc) Maybe after 10 fines you get a point on your license? Maybe the state has to prove it was you driving so they setup more (but discreet) cameras at intersections?
      - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
        I say we set the delay to red and green to be 0 state wide and use the cameras to fine people who don't start moving within a short amount of time after they get green. Betcha red light running drops like a rock after that.
htx80nerd 7mo ago
>"The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure." In my own experience, when they took down the red light cameras in my area now people are not afraid to run red lights ~2 to ~3 seconds after it's red. See this kind of thing on a regular basis. Every now and then there's a serious accident.
- giantg2 7mo ago
  The objective evidence indicates that accidents tend to go up after red light cameras go up, generally because the operators lower the yellow light time to increase fees.
  - advisedwang 7mo ago
    Neither of you share any references for the objective facts you claim to be stating. At least link an article or a study.
  - themafia 7mo ago
    So the objective evidence indicates that yellow light timing is the most important factor in reducing accidents. Why are we discussing cameras?
  - kshacker 7mo ago
    can this not be regulated? yellow light timing must not have changed for the last 12 months before adding cameras
    - giantg2 7mo ago
      Better to set it using a standard such as 1 second per 10mph of speed limit.
  - hamdingers 7mo ago
    The objective evidence shows an increase in rear-end crashes but a reduction in injury and fatal crashes, offering a net overall benefit. Council et al., 2005 -- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
advisedwang 7mo ago
A speeding ticket is not a criminal charge. Criminal procedure and the rights for criminal defendants don't apply. The court says that criminal rules should apply because points are at stake, while civil penalties are usually restricted to fines, but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal proceedings.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  >but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal proceedings. All of which are an affront to people's rights. The fact that we use a "special word" (civil) for the category of laws where we won't throw you straight in prison if you don't comply, we'll add the extra step of waiting for noncompliance and then charging someone with contempt doesn't fundamentally alter the relationship between the enforcers and the people, so why should the people have to put up with their rights being ignored in those cases?
  - TulliusCicero 7mo ago
    > All of which are an affront to people's rights. Rights are not unlimited. You don't have some inherent human right to ignore building codes, or to retain full custody of your child in the event of a divorce.
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      A reasonably median person doing reasonably median things (so like within a couple standard deviations) has a right to be free from low effort harassment by the state at the unilateral whim of its agents. In the US this is codified across several of the amendments in the bill of rights. That means the building inspector can't just waltz into your home uninvited, ICE can't kick in your door because your maid is brown and the government can't just put up cameras and start dragnet fining people for rules that only really exist on paper and are used to make it procedurally easier to go after behavior that's bad for subjective reasons. Second, the fact that legislative bodies may pass and enforcers may enforce stuff that violates people's rights (rental inspections and civil asset forfeiture) come to mind because the size of the harm and the manner in which it is targeted keeps it below the "get everyone pissed off" level doesn't make it not a violation of people's rights. Funny you mention building code. The manner in which building (zoning really, since building code is basically the public adoption of 3rd party standards via the zoning code) code is written and enforces is complete dogshit and would not hold up to rigorous scrutiny (and generally does not, in the incredibly rare occasion is sees it), but between the fact that it's cheaper to comply and that the worse abuses are generally targeted at exactly the kind of people who no judge will have sympathy for (much like civil asset forfeiture was initially) mean the general population is not too up in arms about it since it's Now, before you put words in my mouth as the kind of people who say things like "rights are not unlimited" are in my observation very apt to do, I'm not saying don't have building code. I'm saying don't violate people's rights to have it, or anything else. It's nowhere near enforced to the letter anyway so walking the actual letters back to match what can be enforced without violating people's rights should be no big deal. And the same is goes for like red light cameras.
giantg2 7mo ago
"under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." This makes me question many existing civil things. Obviously child support, as in the case law. But also, things like red flag laws. It seems like any civil law that would apply criminal-type contemt penalties is unconstitutional.
maest 7mo ago
So is there an alternative or we'll just accept we can't punish bad driving?
- fyredge 7mo ago
  Two paths: Higher quality cameras equipped with facial recognition connected to a database to issue a ticket to the correct person (driver), or Hire more traffic officers to sit at traffic intersections to catch red light offenders, which will scale in cost by the size of the city, so Pick your poison
  - mr_mitm 7mo ago
    So this has been a thing in Germany since forever. The driver must pay the penalty, not the owner. So what they do is take a picture of the driver and send this to the owner. They have to either pay up, or state the name of the person who drove. If the driver claims that they did not drive and do not know the person on the picture (and if a cursory investigation fails, not sure how much time the authorities will invest in finding the driver), they will be told to record all rides with that vehicle from now on. If they fail to do that, I guess they get a greater penalty the next time, I'm not sure. So yeah, in some cases you might get out of it by feigning ignorance, but it seems to be a sensible compromise between facial recognition and giving up.
    - fyredge 7mo ago
      Oh, that is a great third path! Thank you for that. I wonder how effective feigning ignorance will be when the officer can just compare the picture of you and your ID / IRL face.
      - mr_mitm 7mo ago
        Yeah it might only work in edge cases. Someone I know got caught speeding in his wifes car wearing a hat and sunglasses and looked to the side at the time, so he managed to get out of it somehow.
kakacik 7mo ago
Lol most of radars become mainly revenue stream, regardless of country or continent. Even mighty orderly Switzerland has some of that shit and its growing. Where I live, there is one nasty radar placed so that people have to break rather hard, when leaving town as in few meters before end sign, on a steeply downhill slope, when there is just straight empty road ahead. Those who don't know get flashed frequently. There is no pedestrian crossing, no buildings, just empty fields. Locals complained and municipality said - sorry, we know, but its generating too much revenue and municipality needs that cash and became dependent on that. Basically FU. I know about few others in either Switzerland or France which have very nasty locations, in order to trap as many as possible, in places with 0 actual risk to anybody. They also love putting temporary radars in some train underpasses which also go steeply down, so its trivial go few kms over the limit if you don't constantly brake and ie actually watch traffic around. Since they are well hidden and people see them at last moment and slam brakes hard, it properly increases risks of accidents, especially with mixture of cyclists or scooters/motorbikes. But that doesn't seem the priority anymore. I am not saying they don't make sense in some places especially around pedestrian crossings, but its trivial to get 'addicted' to steady cash flow and then friction to change situation is maximal. Thats the point where it stops its primary purpose and becomes self-serving bureaucracy self-feeding loop.
throwawayffffas 7mo ago
The judge is right, of course the solution is not to ban the cameras, but to place them in a position that will capture the driver.
nashashmi 7mo ago
If the core of the reasoning is the fines and penalties then surely the remedy is to temper the punishment to just fees that need to be fulfilled upon renewal or registration.
sidewndr46 7mo ago
I went and read the section about Feiock. It's page 11 in the PDF for those interested. Section IV.B It states "while these offense are labelled civil they remain fundamentally quasi-criminal in nature: punitive, adjudicative". Later it states "the State may not employ presumptions or burden-shifting devices that relieve it of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" The judge stops just an inch short of saying "this is a kangaroo court where guilt is stated rather than proven"
joshuamorton 7mo ago
Can someone link the order, I've searched heavily for it and it's not linked by an of the articles or findable easily.
- fusslo 7mo ago
  https://cbs12.com/resources/pdf/cbe9aa52-7a29-407c-8bce-b1c71ed25725-OrderGrantingMotiontoDismiss25135882TI20A.pdf#toolbar=0&navpanes=0&scrollbar=0 https://cbs12.com/resources/pdf/cbe9aa52-7a29-407c-8bce-b1c7...

by fusslo 7mo ago

moduspol 7mo ago

Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?

Tactical45 7mo ago
And speed light cameras
- atomicUpdate 7mo ago
  What is a speed light camera?
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
causal 7mo ago
No. Parking is leaving your possession somewhere and should apply to the registered owner. It is not illegal to own a car that someone else used to run a red light.
- spunker540 7mo ago
  No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.
  - Muromec 7mo ago
    Or is it?
  - interestpiqued 7mo ago
    If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?
    - vkou 7mo ago
      When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to. But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.
      - interestpiqued 7mo ago
        It seems in this case they’re not asking, they’re accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think that is substantively different Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I’m saying
    - gus_massa 7mo ago
      3 year before the murder: You are probably fine, IANAL 10 minutes before the murder: Expect to get an accusation of accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a few additional tomes of the penal code. We all know you are innocent, but you should better find a good lawyer just in case instead of wasting your last free minutes arguing on the internet.
wifipunk 7mo ago
Almost, except parking tickets are still typically civil “owner-liability” citations tied to where the car is parked, while red-light violations are intended to target the driver’s conduct
horsawlarway 7mo ago
possibly, although I suspect the quote from above: > Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution... Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light) is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking) in how they're handled, and often how they're classified. Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.
- devman0 7mo ago
  Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it does become a misdemeanor moving violation.
- bdangubic 7mo ago
  there is no state where a moving violation is criminal misdemeanor. some moving violations may be CM but there are myriad of moving violations whose class/degree is not CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with it you better get yourself an attorney.
  - tsimionescu 7mo ago
    That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings, and as such, that the protections for criminal prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.
    - giantg2 7mo ago
      Where is the line drawn for criminal vs civil in nature? It feels like any civil case brought against an individual by a government is quasi-criminal.
      - bdangubic 7mo ago
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?
- otterley 7mo ago
  No.

SunshineTheCat 7mo ago

I've followed a few cases surrounding traffic cameras that have been ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that individuals have the right to face their accuser. The question in those cases came down to if the operators of the cam can be considered "accusers." They widely considered that of course the cam itself didn't count as an accuser, but the question was how "automated" the system was. If there was a human who flagged it, the system was fine, if it was fully automated, they were unconstitutional. Many states don't share this opinion, but an interesting argument nonetheless.

burningChrome 7mo ago
They started putting them up in the midwest where I live. The interesting thing is if you get a ticket and just pay it? Nothing. If you get a ticket and you challenge it, the judge will immediately throw it out for the reason you pointed out or just dismiss it before it even gets to court by sending out a form letter saying they nullified the ticket, no reason to pay it. So in essence, if you know this is what they're doing, you're good. But they're not telling people so the money grift continues unabated and in place.
- giantg2 7mo ago
  So if it's established as unconstitutional, couldn't you file a criminal complaint of official oppression against the members of whatever government approved the cameras since they are levying unconstitutional fines?
  - jcranmer 7mo ago
    As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action. You could file a civil action for violation of constitutional rights, but under Roberts, SCOTUS has basically been ripping out all of the mechanisms that would let you file such suits.
    - giantg2 7mo ago
      "As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action." You can file with the police, if they take it. You can also file as a private criminal complaint in many jurisdictions. However, it's up to the DA to approve it most of the time. There can be an appeal process where a judge would make a determination. But yes, if the whole system is corrupt, then there's not much to do.

tootie 7mo ago

As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.

rootusrootus 7mo ago
I people are routinely running a red for a particular intersection, it seems likely that there is a design problem with the intersection or the signaling. Improving safety would be fixing the underlying problem.
- tsimionescu 7mo ago
  It's actually pretty common for some people to just run red lights when the road is really clear, especially at night. Best that could maybe be done would be to reduce visibility of cross traffic, so that the drivers can't tell from afar that the road they'll cross is clear - but this is likely to cause other kinds of risks.
  - tootie 7mo ago
    They do it when the road is busiest actually. Just following the bumper in front of them instead of looking up.
toast0 7mo ago
If people routinely run the red light, it seems like an easy case to post an officer to do traffic stops and issue tickets. AFAIK, tickets issued by a sworn officer are broadly constitutional.
- tootie 7mo ago
  There's a literal police station at the intersection and they don't pay any attention at all.

hamdingers 7mo ago

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.

danesparza 7mo ago
"It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance." Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?
- vkou 7mo ago
  What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - danesparza 7mo ago
    Wow dude. Calm down. "What's the alternative?". Maybe a more thoughtful law. Perhaps a scaled fine system? (The second fine costs 2x the first fine, the third fine costs 3x the first fine, etc) Maybe after 10 fines you get a point on your license? Maybe the state has to prove it was you driving so they setup more (but discreet) cameras at intersections?
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      I say we set the delay to red and green to be 0 state wide and use the cameras to fine people who don't start moving within a short amount of time after they get green. Betcha red light running drops like a rock after that.

htx80nerd 7mo ago

>"The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure." In my own experience, when they took down the red light cameras in my area now people are not afraid to run red lights ~2 to ~3 seconds after it's red. See this kind of thing on a regular basis. Every now and then there's a serious accident.

giantg2 7mo ago
The objective evidence indicates that accidents tend to go up after red light cameras go up, generally because the operators lower the yellow light time to increase fees.
- advisedwang 7mo ago
  Neither of you share any references for the objective facts you claim to be stating. At least link an article or a study.
- themafia 7mo ago
  So the objective evidence indicates that yellow light timing is the most important factor in reducing accidents. Why are we discussing cameras?
- kshacker 7mo ago
  can this not be regulated? yellow light timing must not have changed for the last 12 months before adding cameras
  - giantg2 7mo ago
    Better to set it using a standard such as 1 second per 10mph of speed limit.
- hamdingers 7mo ago
  The objective evidence shows an increase in rear-end crashes but a reduction in injury and fatal crashes, offering a net overall benefit. Council et al., 2005 -- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...

advisedwang 7mo ago

A speeding ticket is not a criminal charge. Criminal procedure and the rights for criminal defendants don't apply. The court says that criminal rules should apply because points are at stake, while civil penalties are usually restricted to fines, but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal proceedings.

cucumber3732842 7mo ago
>but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal proceedings. All of which are an affront to people's rights. The fact that we use a "special word" (civil) for the category of laws where we won't throw you straight in prison if you don't comply, we'll add the extra step of waiting for noncompliance and then charging someone with contempt doesn't fundamentally alter the relationship between the enforcers and the people, so why should the people have to put up with their rights being ignored in those cases?
- TulliusCicero 7mo ago
  > All of which are an affront to people's rights. Rights are not unlimited. You don't have some inherent human right to ignore building codes, or to retain full custody of your child in the event of a divorce.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    A reasonably median person doing reasonably median things (so like within a couple standard deviations) has a right to be free from low effort harassment by the state at the unilateral whim of its agents. In the US this is codified across several of the amendments in the bill of rights. That means the building inspector can't just waltz into your home uninvited, ICE can't kick in your door because your maid is brown and the government can't just put up cameras and start dragnet fining people for rules that only really exist on paper and are used to make it procedurally easier to go after behavior that's bad for subjective reasons. Second, the fact that legislative bodies may pass and enforcers may enforce stuff that violates people's rights (rental inspections and civil asset forfeiture) come to mind because the size of the harm and the manner in which it is targeted keeps it below the "get everyone pissed off" level doesn't make it not a violation of people's rights. Funny you mention building code. The manner in which building (zoning really, since building code is basically the public adoption of 3rd party standards via the zoning code) code is written and enforces is complete dogshit and would not hold up to rigorous scrutiny (and generally does not, in the incredibly rare occasion is sees it), but between the fact that it's cheaper to comply and that the worse abuses are generally targeted at exactly the kind of people who no judge will have sympathy for (much like civil asset forfeiture was initially) mean the general population is not too up in arms about it since it's Now, before you put words in my mouth as the kind of people who say things like "rights are not unlimited" are in my observation very apt to do, I'm not saying don't have building code. I'm saying don't violate people's rights to have it, or anything else. It's nowhere near enforced to the letter anyway so walking the actual letters back to match what can be enforced without violating people's rights should be no big deal. And the same is goes for like red light cameras.

giantg2 7mo ago

"under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." This makes me question many existing civil things. Obviously child support, as in the case law. But also, things like red flag laws. It seems like any civil law that would apply criminal-type contemt penalties is unconstitutional.

maest 7mo ago

So is there an alternative or we'll just accept we can't punish bad driving?

fyredge 7mo ago
Two paths: Higher quality cameras equipped with facial recognition connected to a database to issue a ticket to the correct person (driver), or Hire more traffic officers to sit at traffic intersections to catch red light offenders, which will scale in cost by the size of the city, so Pick your poison
- mr_mitm 7mo ago
  So this has been a thing in Germany since forever. The driver must pay the penalty, not the owner. So what they do is take a picture of the driver and send this to the owner. They have to either pay up, or state the name of the person who drove. If the driver claims that they did not drive and do not know the person on the picture (and if a cursory investigation fails, not sure how much time the authorities will invest in finding the driver), they will be told to record all rides with that vehicle from now on. If they fail to do that, I guess they get a greater penalty the next time, I'm not sure. So yeah, in some cases you might get out of it by feigning ignorance, but it seems to be a sensible compromise between facial recognition and giving up.
  - fyredge 7mo ago
    Oh, that is a great third path! Thank you for that. I wonder how effective feigning ignorance will be when the officer can just compare the picture of you and your ID / IRL face.
    - mr_mitm 7mo ago
      Yeah it might only work in edge cases. Someone I know got caught speeding in his wifes car wearing a hat and sunglasses and looked to the side at the time, so he managed to get out of it somehow.

kakacik 7mo ago

Lol most of radars become mainly revenue stream, regardless of country or continent. Even mighty orderly Switzerland has some of that shit and its growing. Where I live, there is one nasty radar placed so that people have to break rather hard, when leaving town as in few meters before end sign, on a steeply downhill slope, when there is just straight empty road ahead. Those who don't know get flashed frequently. There is no pedestrian crossing, no buildings, just empty fields. Locals complained and municipality said - sorry, we know, but its generating too much revenue and municipality needs that cash and became dependent on that. Basically FU. I know about few others in either Switzerland or France which have very nasty locations, in order to trap as many as possible, in places with 0 actual risk to anybody. They also love putting temporary radars in some train underpasses which also go steeply down, so its trivial go few kms over the limit if you don't constantly brake and ie actually watch traffic around. Since they are well hidden and people see them at last moment and slam brakes hard, it properly increases risks of accidents, especially with mixture of cyclists or scooters/motorbikes. But that doesn't seem the priority anymore. I am not saying they don't make sense in some places especially around pedestrian crossings, but its trivial to get 'addicted' to steady cash flow and then friction to change situation is maximal. Thats the point where it stops its primary purpose and becomes self-serving bureaucracy self-feeding loop.

throwawayffffas 7mo ago

The judge is right, of course the solution is not to ban the cameras, but to place them in a position that will capture the driver.

nashashmi 7mo ago

If the core of the reasoning is the fines and penalties then surely the remedy is to temper the punishment to just fees that need to be fulfilled upon renewal or registration.

sidewndr46 7mo ago

I went and read the section about Feiock. It's page 11 in the PDF for those interested. Section IV.B It states "while these offense are labelled civil they remain fundamentally quasi-criminal in nature: punitive, adjudicative". Later it states "the State may not employ presumptions or burden-shifting devices that relieve it of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" The judge stops just an inch short of saying "this is a kangaroo court where guilt is stated rather than proven"

joshuamorton 7mo ago

Can someone link the order, I've searched heavily for it and it's not linked by an of the articles or findable easily.

fusslo 7mo ago
https://cbs12.com/resources/pdf/cbe9aa52-7a29-407c-8bce-b1c71ed25725-OrderGrantingMotiontoDismiss25135882TI20A.pdf#toolbar=0&navpanes=0&scrollbar=0 https://cbs12.com/resources/pdf/cbe9aa52-7a29-407c-8bce-b1c7...